The story about how secure boot for Windows 8, part of UEFI, will hinder the use of non-signed binaries and operating systems, like Linux, has registered at Redmond as well. The company posted about it on the Building Windows 8 blog - but didn't take any of the worries away. In fact, Red Hat's Matthew Garrett, who originally broke this story, has some more information - worst of which is that Red Hat has received confirmation from hardware vendors that some of them will not allow you to disable secure boot.

I'm not sure how your post relates to the questions in my post which you responded to?

***Hypothetically*** speaking, would you have a problem if 100% "designed for windows" OEM PCs were locked to microsoft?

If 100% makes you uncomfortable, then what hypothetical percentage would you be comfortable with? Isn't the scale of damage to the linux community proportional to the ubiquity of MS locked machines (whoever is responsible)?

Edit: I'd like to ask this again: if you were designing secure boot, would you hard code OEM/microsoft keys into it? Or would the owner have control over who's signatures to trust?